knapplc wrote:The person asking the original question was just trying to cause trouble. The rest of us all saw reality.

Don't you get tired of saying this about me? This must be the 5th or 6th time you've made such an accusation...it's tiresome. It is possible to look to engage someone in a discussion without "trying to cause trouble," whatever that even means.

From reading STL's post, it would seem that he was saying it was an act perpetrated by a person, persons, who had a history of terrorist activities, or a connection to groups with a history of terrorist activities. I found it odd that he would be able to make such a claim before any authorities even mentioned possible suspects or terrorist connections.

knapplc wrote:The person asking the original question was just trying to cause trouble. The rest of us all saw reality.

Don't you get tired of saying this about me? This must be the 5th or 6th time you've made such an accusation...it's tiresome. It is possible to look to engage someone in a discussion without "trying to cause trouble," whatever that even means.

From reading STL's post, it would seem that he was saying it was an act perpetrated by a person, persons, who had a history of terrorist activities, or a connection to groups with a history of terrorist activities. I found it odd that he would be able to make such a claim before any authorities even mentioned possible suspects or terrorist connections.

Don't you get tired of trying to cause trouble?

Don't be coy. It's obvious what you were asking and why. Your track record shows a history of these kinds of leading questions. It would be an assumption on my part had you never asked such a question, only to jump into some rant about this or that in the past. Since you've done so (and apparently continue to do so) it's no longer an assumption.

knapplc wrote:Don't be coy. It's obvious what you were asking and why. Your track record shows a history of these kinds of leading questions. It would be an assumption on my part had you never asked such a question, only to jump into some rant about this or that in the past. Since you've done so (and apparently continue to do so) it's no longer an assumption.

Maybe you're not familiar with my track record. I don't mince words, if I see something I disagree with I'm not shy about calling someone on it, and if I've caused any trouble here, I certainly haven't done so by being coy. I'm sure I've gotten under the skin of plenty of members here, but you're probably the only one who would accuse me of doing so in an indirect manner. Maybe you should spend less time reading into my posts, and more time reading them.

Again, the way STL worded his original post led me to believe that he was talking about a specific group ("these people" seemed very specific to me, and saying that they will attack "regardless of who leads these countries" made me think he was talking about someone who had attacked under the previous leader). Before jumping into the conversation I wanted to know if he was indeed talking about a specific group, and if so, which one. He said he was talking in general about terrorists and not specifically about any person or group. That was good enough for me, and I would have left the conversation there, but I've had to come back a couple times to try to explain why I asked that original question. That being good enough for me apparently wasn't good enough for you, though, because here we are halfway through page two.

1. This was done by doctors. Granted, doctors aren't paid as well in England as they are in the US, but they're certainly not poor. They were middle class.2. They were caught by using disciplined inter-agency cooperation, targeted surveillance, citizen awareness, and blind luck. They were not caught by using blanket surveillance of English citizens.3. Britain's terror attacks have been thus far, in contrast to the U.S.'s, homegrown. It's been their own citizens, many of whose grandparents were part of the Pakistani colonization, who attacked them.

Not that I'm not interested in the other part of the thread, but these are the parts of the story that jumped out at me.